2025:HHC:31284 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 205 of 2024 Decided on: 09.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and others ...Appellants. Versus Kamaljit Singh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellants: Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vasu Sood and Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocates. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal seeks consideration of the judgment dated 10.05.2024 whereby, the writ petition of the present respondent i.e. CWP No.1207 of 2019, titled Kamaljit Singh versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others was allowed and communication dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) was quashed. Resultantly, directions were issued to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner under Group-1 and pass appropriate orders, in terms of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:31284 - 2 - conditions contained in the Brochure. 2. Learned Single Judge was of the considered opinion that in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 25.11.2018 (Annexure P-2), the necessary application had been filed dated 22.12.2018 for the Retail Dealership Outlet at his petrol pump at Dharampur to Subathu Road, though in the online application, only Khasra No.16 was mentioned, but an affidavit had been submitted of even date [22.12.2018] wherein, two more Khasra numbers were mentioned bearing Nos.17 and 18. The combined area of Khasra Nos. 16 to 18 was more than 400 Square Meters and, therefore, the objection taken by the Corporation that Khasra No.16 is measuring 30 Square Meters, which was admittedly less than the prescribed limit i.e. 400 Square Meters and category of writ-petitioner had been converted from Group 1 to Group 3, was without any basis. 3. Resultantly, placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in K. Vinod Kumar Vs. S. Palanisamy, (2003) 10 SCC 681, wherein it was held that even subsequent to the filing of the application, particulars of such land which were proposed to be 2025:HHC:31284 - 3 - offered, could be made available, accordingly, the petition was allowed. 4. Counsel for the appellant-Corporation has submitted that in the application, there is only reference of one Khasra number and, therefore, the defence was rightly taken that there was concealment, as such, regarding the exact area which was offered and the same was less than prescribed norms. The Corporation was within its right to offer and put the writ petitioner into Category 3, of similarly situated persons, which had duly been considered, after examining the case, as such, 5. We are of the considered opinion that having submitted the requisite application and having been successful of draw of lots on 07.02.2019 only on account of the complete details having been missed out in the application, which was uploaded and the reference of two other khasra numbers were not given, would not, as such, take away the right of consideration. 6. The law regarding the aspect, as such, of the verification of the land, which was to be offered has been made flexible as noticed by us in LPA 9 of 2025, Vijay Kumar versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and 2025:HHC:31284 - 4 - others, decided on 11.07.2025, wherein we have noticed this aspect in similar circumstances, where there were over hanging high tension electric wires passing over the site offered. The land owner was aggrieved of his rejection, on account of physical inspection of site, having been done, and he having not been given adequate opportunity to remove the overhanging wires. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that thereafter he had also approached the Electricity Board and got the wires removed and as the land was sufficient, as such, to cater to the needs of LPG Godown in that case, and had allowed the appeal. 7. We had placed reliance on Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others AIR 2024 SC 2717, wherein, Notification dated 30.04.2015, which provided flexibility in the Selection Guidelines, had been taken into account and resultantly, the Apex Court had come to the conclusion that the same let the Oil Marketing Company be more flexible, and permitted applicants to offer alternative land. The relevant portion reads as under:- “Thus the notification dated 30.04.2015 providing flexibility in the selection guidelines for providing opportunity to offer 2025:HHC:31284 - 5 - alternate land in response to the advertisement was considered. Accordingly it was held that the interference by the Division Bench was not justified and the alternate land offered as such by the successful applicant as such had been found suitable and it was in consonance with the change in policies and no favouritism or nepotism had come into play and therefore the appeal was allowed upholding the allotment. The relevant portion reads as under: “14. Having regard to the afore-stated principles of law enunciated herein above, when we turn our attention to facts on hand, it would not detain us for too long for accepting the plea of the appellant in affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. We say so for reasons more than one, firstly, it requires to be noticed that the writ petitioner was a rival applicant along with the appellant herein for grant of LPG distributorship and she along with the appellant herein, were found to be eligible and the appellant herein was held to be successful by virtue of draw of lots. This factual aspect would reflect that the writ petitioner was aware of all the developments including that of the allotment of distributorship having been made in favour of the appellant herein way back in 2014, yet did not challenge and only on acceptance of the alternate land offered by the appellant in March, 2017 and permitting him to construct the godown and the showroom. Same was challenged in the year 2017 and thereby the writ petitioner had allowed his right if at all if any to be drifted away or in other words acquiesced in the acts of the Corporation and as such on this short ground itself the appellant has to succeed. Secondly, another fact which has swayed in our mind to accept the plea of the appellant herein is that, undisputedly the appropriate government had felt the need of permitting the Oil Marketing Companies to be more flexible and as such modification to the guidelines had been brought about on 15.04.2015 whereby the applicants were permitted to offer alternate land where the land initially offered by them was found deficient or not suitable or change of the land, subject to specifications as laid down in the advertisement being met. There being no stiff opposition or strong resistance to the alternate land offered by the appellant herein not being as per the specifications indicated in the advertisement, we see no reason to substitute the court’s view to that of the experts namely, the Corporation which has in its wisdom has exercised its discretion as is evident from the report filed in the form of affidavit by the territory manager (LPG)/ BPCL whereunder it has been stated: “13. On the basis of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to non- agricultural. In his application form the said Respondent no. 9 had provided the Land for godown 2025:HHC:31284 - 6 - at Plot No 3732, Khatian No LR 2585, 2586, 2587 JL No 34, Mouza Kolera, Jamalpur, Distt Burdwan admeasuring 33 decimal. The same was cleared based on Registered Lease Deed, which was found to have been genuine in all respects as confirmed by the ADSR Jamalpur. 16. The land offered by the successful candidate, namely the Respondent no.9 was found to be eligible by relying on the abovementioned clauses, which determine eligibility of the land based on the status of ownership. The fact that the said land was a "Barga" land is not a material condition on the basis of which the Respondent no. 9's candidature could be cancelled. 24. Subsequently, FVC of the said newly offered land by the LOI holder, Respondent no. 9 was conducted and the same was found suitable for construction of LPG Godown. A letter being DGP:LPG OMP: Jamalpur dated 21.03.2017 was provided to the said LOI holder informing him that the alternate land provided is found suitable and therefore his request to construct LPG Godown in the said alternate land has been approved. A copy of the said letter dated 21.03.2017 is annexed hereto and is marked as "R-5". 25. It is therefore submitted that the steps taken by the Respondent no. 3 in allowing the LOI holder, Respondent no. 9, to provide alternate land for construction of godown, have been in consonance. with the change in policies and no favoritism or nepotism, as suggested by the petitioner has been in play. 32. It is further clarified that the FVC conducted on the original land offered by the Respondent no. 9 was found to be satisfactory on all counts, and only on the basis of this, his request for provision of alternate land wall accepted.” 15. Hence, we are of the considered view that the order of the Learned Division Bench is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The order of the Learned Single Judge stands restored for the reasons indicated herein above and the appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.” 8. We had also placed reliance upon the judgment in Jagwant Kaur vs. Union of India (2025) 2 Supreme 337 which had followed Mrinmoy Maity (supra). The relevant part reads as under: 2025:HHC:31284 - 7 - “12.The Division Bench relied on the judgment of this Court in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30152 of 2018 decided on 18.04.2024] wherein it was categorically held that the modification to the guidelines with respect to allotment of L.P.G. distributorship brought out on 15.04.2015 provided for offering alternate land where the land initially offered by the applicant was found deficient or not suitable or change of nature of the land, subject to specifications as laid down in the advertisements being complied with. There is no dispute that the alternate land offered met the requirement in the advertisement. The argument is that the very factum of the alternate land being offered and accepted, substantiates the contention of disability visited on the 4th respondent by reason of the land offered in the application being identical to that offered by another applicant; which contention we have already found to be fallacious. The alternate land has been offered only in the context of the shifting stance of the lessor; the acceptance of which by the Corporation was possible as per the guidelines, which provided more flexibility in the allotment process. We 1 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30152 of 2018 decided on 18.04.2024 find absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgments impugned and reject the contentions raised.” 9. While dismissing the present appeal and upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge, we were of the considered opinion that merely on account of an error which happened in the online form, the valuable rights, as such, of the applicant-writ petitioner, who was a successful bidder in draw of lots, cannot be negated by the Corporation as admittedly sufficient land was available with him. 10. Perusal of the affidavit filed by the applicant- writ petitioner, as such, would go on to show that he has given reference of Khasra Nos. 16, 17 and 18 at village 2025:HHC:31284 - 8 - Mohal Dumori, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. which measure’s more than 50 meters (frontage) x 64 meters (depth) approximately having area (3237 Square Meters). The mutation No.38 was entered on 26.12.2001, as per the affidavit, much before the Advertisement dated 25.11.2018. 11. A necessary confirmatory letter from an Advocate, Mr. Vikrant Singh Thakur, of even date [22.12.2018], Annexure P-9, had also been given to the appellant-Corporation, mentioning three khasra numbers falling in Khata Khatauni No.6/6, the location, as such, was on the Dharampur to Subathu road within 6 kilometers and in such circumstances, there is sufficient material on record to show that the requisite amount of land was available. 12. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and we do not find any plausible reason to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand 2025:HHC:31284 - 9 - disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 9th September, 2025 [himani/Bhardwaj]